Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Seal Jet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The following grounds have been taken by the applicant/appellant for waiver. (a) That all the efforts have been made from Show Cause Notice to Order-in-original to state that the appellant is using the brand name and logo of foreign company. However, the Commissioner has not given a single finding or it has not been proved anywhere that the impugned name and logo is a brand name and logo of any foreign company. (b) That, as required by Rule 173B of CE Rules, 1944, the appellant had given a declaration that he is not using any foreign brand name or logo. Under the said Rule, the assessee's responsibility was limited to filing classification list to the best of his own understanding and no departmental approval is required for that. However, by virtue of a Circular No. 124/35/95 CX dated 10.05.1995, a burden was entirely casted on the shoulders of the Department to disapprove the classification if not acceptable or direct the assessee for provisional assessment unde...

Austria Micro Systems Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)760

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 26th Nov., 1996, passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr.1993-94.2. The short issue requiring our adjudication is whether or not the sum of Rs. 2,75,23,613 that the appellant has received from Semiconductor Complex Ltd. is exigible to tax in India.3. The issue in appeal is set out in a narrow compass of material facts. Semiconductor Complex Ltd. (SCL, in short), a Government of India undertaking, engaged in the production of integrated circuits required by defence installations and products, had to temporarily suspend its production operations due to a massive fire in its premises. It was in this period of suspension of its production operations that SCL had to outsource certain products to meet its existing commitments. Accordingly, on 1st April, 1989, SCL floated global tenders, a copy of which was placed before us at Annex. E of the co...

Dhansukhlal C. Patel Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT157(Mum.)

All these appeals filed by the assessees, pertain to assessment year 1997-98. Since in all these appeals identical issues are involved, we dispose of the same by this common order for the sake of convenience.The first common ground of objection raised by the assesses is directed against the order of the CIT (A) in adding the entire interest for the period from 1-4-1990 to 31-12-1996 received on retiral benefits, as income for the assessment year under consideration. The facts leading to the dispute briefly is as under.In this case, the assessment was processed under section 143(1)(a) making adjustment to the income returned on account of interest received by the assessees from their employer ie. Overseas Communication Services (hereinafter referred to as the OCS) a Government of India concern. On conversion of OCS into Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the VSNL), the assessees were entitled to retirement benefits from OCS, which was retained by the employer for ...

income Tax Officer Vs. Austria Micro Systems

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)770

1. All the above three appeals and one cross-objection pertain to litigation between Semiconductor Complex Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, and the IT authorities. Learned representatives fairly agree that in all these matter, the appellants or cross-objector were required to take the clearance of the Committee on Disputes (Cabinet Secretariat) in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in the case of ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise.2. It is an admitted position that the appellants and the cross-objector have not yet obtained the requisite clearance of the High Powered Committee (Cabinet Secretariat) in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in the case of ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise (supra). Considerable time has passed since these appeals and cross-objection were filed but the CoD clearance is not yet obtained.4. In view of the fact that CoD approval is not obtained by the parties, we consider it fit and proper to dismiss all the three appeals an...

Abode Construction Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Mum.)35

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt.16th March, 1998, of the CIT(A)-XI, Mumbai, pertaining to the asst. yr.1994-95. "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding in conformity with the ITO that profit in respect of construction business is assessable from year to year based on percentage of receipts rejecting the method followed by the appellants on completion of project method. 2. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the method followed by the appellants was one of the recognised methods and did not consider the decision relied upon by the appellants direct on the point. 3. The learned CIT(A) in upholding the action of the AO failed to appreciate that the method followed was one of the recognised methods irrespective of the fact whether the assessee is a builder/developer or contractor. 4. The learned CIT(A) further erred in holding that the appellants were merely contractors and not builders/developers as claimed by them in respect of...

J.B. Advani and Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Mum.)175

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98. The appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-VI at Mumbai, dt. 6th Oct, 2000, and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3), of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case is a company engaged in manufacturing of welding transformers, rectifiers and engineering items. The assessee-company incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6,75,237 during the relevant previous year, towards foreign study expenses of Miss Reshma A. Lalwani, Miss Reshma A. Lalwani is the daughter of a director of the assessee-company and also an employee of the assessee-company.According to the assessee-company Miss Reshma A. Lalwani was sent to Britain for the higher study in business administration at the interest of the assessee-company. Miss Reshma Lalwani had entered into an agreement with the assessee-company that she would work in the assessee-company for a period of 5 years on return to India. It is the case ...

Addl. Cit, Spl. Range-44 Vs. Mrs. Madhur I. Teckchandaney

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD65(Mum.)

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,16,250/- made by AO under head long term capital gains on the ground that the expenses claimed is admissible in nature within the meaning of Section 48(1) of the IT Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the contribution made by the assessee to the Anita Cooperative Housing society ltd was "voluntary contribution towards the repairs fund of the society and the charity is not admissible under Section 48(1) of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred allowing the above disallowance made by AO ignoring the fact that Section 49(1) deals with computation of long term capital gains by deducting from the value of consideration or acquiring by expenditure incurred wholly or exclusively or acquisition or cost of improvement of property and does not deals with charity" 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a h...

Janardan Pandurang Lipane and ors. Vs. Sadhu Davji Lipane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR889; 2005(1)BomCR599; 2004(4)MhLj1129

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records. By consent of the parties, both the applications - the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application as well as the review application itself - were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition in relation to the order passed on 18th November, 2002 in Second Appeal No. 779 of 2002 rejecting the Second Appeal for want of substantial questions of law in the matter.3. It is the case of the applicants that the advocate for the applicants applied for certified copy of the order dated 18th November, 2002 and the same was ready on 18th February, 2003 and the same was delivered to the advocate for the applicants on 6th March, 2003. The applicants, thereafter, contacted their advocate Sri Yogesh Mehta on 16th March, 2003 to inquire about the certified copy of the sai...

Navinon Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR58; 2005(101)ECC532; 2008[12]STR84; [2009]19STT203

Lodha R.M., J.1. By the order in original dated 31st October, 2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, petitioner's rebate claims were rejected. The petitioner received the said order in original on 20th December, 2003 and preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 28th April, 2004. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 2004 the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the appeal was not maintainable being barred by limitation prescribed under section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'Central Excise Act). The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Mr. Hardik Modh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable by virtue of section 29(2) thereof to the appeal under section 35 of the Central Excise Act being special law and section 5 can be availed of for the purpose of extending the peri...

Vidyadhar Pandurang Rane Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR629; 2005(1)MhLj734

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 17th May, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the request of the petitioner for availing defence assistant by the office bearer of the union on the ground that such an office bearer is a practising advocate and that, therefore, the same is not permissible in terms of the Rule 12(8) of the Bombay Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulations').4. Few facts relevant for the decision are that, the petitioner, who is an employee of the 1st respondent and working in the capacity as Driver in the Medical Department at Mumbai Port Trust, was served upon a charge sheet dated 10th February, 2004 alleging misconduct. It was served by the respondent No. 3, who is Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. The same w...